Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

Baldoni supporter here and I don’t agree. The opinion makes clear Blake has to establish a “reasonable belief” of a hostile work environment based on a few of her allegations. They can bring in all kinds of evidence to show there can be no such reasonable belief based on her own sexually charged conduct and credibility issues.

Her lawyers may try this but Baldoni’s lawyers will argue it’s unduly prejudicial and Liman will likely agree and limit her to a summary of why she complained. It’s also a double edged sword for Lively’s team b/c if they open the door Baldoni’s team gets to indict her account and motivations.

I don't think you understand what "prejudice" means in court. You don't just get to keep out any evidence that makes your client look bad. You can keep out evidence that is highly inflammatory, might confuse the jury, or that is intended to show propensity ("this shows the defendant is the sort of person who would do what is alleged"). And the prejudicial impact of evidence is weighted against its relevance ("probative value"). But basic evidence showing, for instance, that Heath entered the makeup trailer after repeated requests not to and that he looked directly at Lively in an undressed state after agreeing to look away, will not be considered inflammatory or confusing. Heath himself admits to most of that already. Eyewitness testimony to the events that Lively believes constituted harassment would also be standard, not prejudicial.

Also, the rules about prejudice will also apply to the defense. They will be allowed to impeach Lively and her witnesses, but they will not be allowed to introduce inflammatory or confusing evidence that doesn't really go to the question of fact (whether Lively had a reasonable belief that she had been harassed). That means: no evidence about "stealing" the movie, no evidence about whether she delayed production or ran up costume costs. No evidence about the state of her friendship with Taylor Swift, about the Van Zan subpoena, etc. Most of Baldoni supporters fixate on will not be permitted to be mentioned in court and certainly won't be allowed as part of Wayfarer's defense.

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

He hasn't been "cleared" of those claims. Lively is just prevented from bringing them because she is determined to have been an independent contractor, not an employee. She will be required to detail the alleged harassment in order to prove that she had a reasonable belief she had been harassed when she brought her complaint.

If it goes to trial, the jury *will* hear testimony and evident regarding the four incidents the judge has outlined, which are also her four strongest allegations. And he will be disinclined to limit further because he's already handed Wayfarer a win in how narrowly he's cut Lively's case. Why would he then cut it further? If he wanted to throw the whole thing out, he would have. He didn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone explain to me why Blake’s lawyers didn’t bring this case in California state court.

Try reading up on rules about venue. Usually, but not in all cases, cases are filed where the harm was alleged by the plaintiff. She alleged harm on the set which was not in California, but in Jersey, I believe. People don't realize this, but non-federal law is state specific. So the laws would be interpreted based on the state where the harm was done.

There are ways that you can argue for other venues, but the courts will look to the state that has the closest nexus to the harm alleged.
I think she tried to move the nexus to a different state. But you have to have enough contacts of alleged harm in that state, or something like that.

I dont know all of the details on this case like some others do.

I'm a lawyer and I don't think you are.

You are right. I don't know the law and I don't know the details of this case.
I do not know why she filed the suit in NY state. And I see that it was a federal suit. But since she filed it in new york, this is probably the reason why it was in a NY court. Not sure where I got Jersey from.

She argued that California law should apply in order to benefit from Ca's Me Too Law. Which is why the other lawyer poster and I are questioning why she didn't file there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone explain to me why Blake’s lawyers didn’t bring this case in California state court.

Try reading up on rules about venue. Usually, but not in all cases, cases are filed where the harm was alleged by the plaintiff. She alleged harm on the set which was not in California, but in Jersey, I believe. People don't realize this, but non-federal law is state specific. So the laws would be interpreted based on the state where the harm was done.

There are ways that you can argue for other venues, but the courts will look to the state that has the closest nexus to the harm alleged.
I think she tried to move the nexus to a different state. But you have to have enough contacts of alleged harm in that state, or something like that.

I dont know all of the details on this case like some others do.

I'm a lawyer and I don't think you are.

You are right. I don't know the law and I don't know the details of this case.
I do not know why she filed the suit in NY state. And I see that it was a federal suit. But since she filed it in new york, this is probably the reason why it was in a NY court. Not sure where I got Jersey from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone explain to me why Blake’s lawyers didn’t bring this case in California state court.

Try reading up on rules about venue. Usually, but not in all cases, cases are filed where the harm was alleged by the plaintiff. She alleged harm on the set which was not in California, but in Jersey, I believe. People don't realize this, but non-federal law is state specific. So the laws would be interpreted based on the state where the harm was done.

There are ways that you can argue for other venues, but the courts will look to the state that has the closest nexus to the harm alleged.
I think she tried to move the nexus to a different state. But you have to have enough contacts of alleged harm in that state, or something like that.

I dont know all of the details on this case like some others do.

I'm a lawyer and I don't think you are.

Anonymous wrote:Someone explain to me why Blake’s lawyers didn’t bring this case in California state court.

Try reading up on rules about venue. Usually, but not in all cases, cases are filed where the harm was alleged by the plaintiff. She alleged harm on the set which was not in California, but in Jersey, I believe. People don't realize this, but non-federal law is state specific. So the laws would be interpreted based on the state where the harm was done.

There are ways that you can argue for other venues, but the courts will look to the state that has the closest nexus to the harm alleged.
I think she tried to move the nexus to a different state. But you have to have enough contacts of alleged harm in that state, or something like that.

I dont know all of the details on this case like some others do.

I find it funny that people are excited that the retaliation can move forward when the retaliation has no evidence. Livelys lawyers admitted it’s an untraceable smear camp campaign.

They tried to subpoena 117 content creators and found nothing.

The very first negative, published allegation that came out from this set was from Blake's side, accusing Justin of being a fat-shaming chauvinist, laundered through anonymous sources in the Daily Mail. It's going to be very easy for Justin to prove the bad press started from Blake's side. We can literally see for ourselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the lawyers, so for the 10 points that were ruled against Lively, who pays Lively's legal fees up until this point? Her, right?

Also, if she takes the case to trial, given that she has shown minimal evidence for retaliation up to now, that claim probably won't be won. For the remaining two claims left, is it even worth it moneywise to pursue in court? What would damages look like?

I've predicted before that the jury could find retaliation occurred (some social media posts boosted/planted or whatever) but minimal damages because most of the reputation was self-inflicted. That would be a kind of worst-case scenario with both parties coming up as losers.

Harvey from tmz has said many times that he knows for a fact they were smearing each other b/c both sides were calling tmz. I’m not sure how Blake convinces anyone this was a one sided attack and not just PR.

That Molly PR guru said this at the very beginning too, that she was sure Blake's team was doing exactly what they were accusing the other parties of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the lawyers, so for the 10 points that were ruled against Lively, who pays Lively's legal fees up until this point? Her, right?

Also, if she takes the case to trial, given that she has shown minimal evidence for retaliation up to now, that claim probably won't be won. For the remaining two claims left, is it even worth it moneywise to pursue in court? What would damages look like?

I've predicted before that the jury could find retaliation occurred (some social media posts boosted/planted or whatever) but minimal damages because most of the reputation was self-inflicted. That would be a kind of worst-case scenario with both parties coming up as losers.

Harvey from tmz has said many times that he knows for a fact they were smearing each other b/c both sides were calling tmz. I’m not sure how Blake convinces anyone this was a one sided attack and not just PR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.

Baldoni supporter here and I don’t agree. The opinion makes clear Blake has to establish a “reasonable belief” of a hostile work environment based on a few of her allegations. They can bring in all kinds of evidence to show there can be no such reasonable belief based on her own sexually charged conduct and credibility issues.

Her lawyers may try this but Baldoni’s lawyers will argue it’s unduly prejudicial and Liman will likely agree and limit her to a summary of why she complained. It’s also a double edged sword for Lively’s team b/c if they open the door Baldoni’s team gets to indict her account and motivations.

Anonymous wrote:Someone explain to me why Blake’s lawyers didn’t bring this case in California state court.

Yeah, I'm wondering the same. It would have solved a lot of the problems with the case.

Someone explain to me why Blake’s lawyers didn’t bring this case in California state court.

Anonymous wrote:To the lawyers, so for the 10 points that were ruled against Lively, who pays Lively's legal fees up until this point? Her, right?

Also, if she takes the case to trial, given that she has shown minimal evidence for retaliation up to now, that claim probably won't be won. For the remaining two claims left, is it even worth it moneywise to pursue in court? What would damages look like?

I've predicted before that the jury could find retaliation occurred (some social media posts boosted/planted or whatever) but minimal damages because most of the reputation was self-inflicted. That would be a kind of worst-case scenario with both parties coming up as losers.

Anonymous wrote:To the lawyers, so for the 10 points that were ruled against Lively, who pays Lively's legal fees up until this point? Her, right?

Also, if she takes the case to trial, given that she has shown minimal evidence for retaliation up to now, that claim probably won't be won. For the remaining two claims left, is it even worth it moneywise to pursue in court? What would damages look like?

All good points and why settlement is the most likely result at this point. She is responsible for her own attorney’s fee and the California “me too” statute is no longer part of the case.